KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY HONOR & INTEGRITY SYSTEM Annual Report to Provost, Faculty Senate and Student Senate 2011-­‐2012 Viktor Chikan, 2011 Submitted by: Director Steve Starrett, Ph.D., P.E., D.WRE, F.ASCE and Associate Director Camilla Roberts, Ph.D. August 16th, 2012 Executive Summary Reporters (faculty, instructors, GTAs, etc.) submitted 135 Honor Code Violation Reports to the Kansas State University Honor & Integrity System. There were 175 students that were involved with these 135 cases. These values were close to their respective averages over the last 10 years. The reporter investigated the situation and determined appropriate sanctions for 93% of the cases. Fifteen hearing panels were conducted to determine if violation occurred and, if appropriate, what the sanctions should be. Unauthorized collaboration was the most frequent violation (40% of cases) and XF was a sanction for 20% of the cases. One of the more unusual situations resulted in permanent XF grades being given to five students that participated in an elaborate unauthorized aid situation. Forty eight educational presentations were made to over 2,000 students and about 150 faculty or staff. One-­‐hundred and eight students completed the Development and Integrity course. Dr. Steve Starrett, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, was appointed as the new Director of the Honor & Integrity System. 2
Introduction The primary purpose of the Honor & Integrity System is to promote academic integrity as a standard of expectation within the university community. With this purpose in mind, the system seeks to promote academic integrity through both education and adjudication. Article VI of the Honor & Integrity System Constitution requires the Director to provide a report to Student Senate, Faculty Senate and the Provost annually. This report summarizes the activities of the Honor System for the 2011/2012 academic year as well as provide a report of the system changes and administrative activities of the Director, Associate Director and Honor Council during the reporting period. Cases Reported The Honor & Integrity System processed 135 Honor Pledge Violation Reports including 24 cases that are currently active. This is consistent with the total number of violation reports received by the Honor & Integrity System since the system’s inception in 1999 (Fig. 1, Table 1). Please note, the data presented reflect only the violations officially reported to the system. These data do not include informal consultation with faculty regarding violations not reported, nor does the data reflect instances discovered by faculty who choose to handle the violation themselves. It should also be noted, Kansas State University does not have a mandatory reporting policy for academic dishonesty. However, faculty should report violations which result in an academic sanction which adversely impacts the student’s grade. The Honor & Integrity System has established procedures by which students may contest allegations of dishonest conduct which is not available to them otherwise. Also, students with repeated violations in various courses would be held more accountable through this university-­‐wide unit. Cases 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 1. Total number of cases per academic year. During the reporting period, 175 students were alleged to have committed Honor Code violations (Table 1). This is close to the average of 160 students per year for the last 10 years. Cases are frequently reported in which multiple violators are named as having violated together the academic integrity standards of the university. If the sanctions are the same, and the violation is related, the Honor & Integrity System assigns one case number to the violation. The number of cases we process is a function of many factors: faculty deciding to report incidences to our office, faculty 3
identifying Honor Code violations, sometimes many students are associated with one case, and the number of violations that have occurred. Table 1. Number of cases and students reported per academic year. Academic Year Cases Students 1999-­‐2000 25 33 2000-­‐2001 55 91 2001-­‐2002 63 103 2002-­‐2003 79 104 2003-­‐2004 91 232 2004-­‐2005 127 162 2005-­‐2006 127 170 2006-­‐2007 116 150 2007-­‐2008 100 127 2008-­‐2009 109 123 2009-­‐2010 134 181 2010-­‐2011 154 188 2011-­‐2012 135 175 Reporters that are the primary instructor for the course where the violation occurred have the authority to determine what the appropriate sanctions are for violating the Honor Code (Option 1 on Violation Report). Reporters can also request the Honor & Integrity System to investigate situation, determine if Honor Code had been violated, and also determine appropriate sanctions. Reporters determined the sanctions for about 93% of the submitted Violation Reports (Fig. 2). 4
1 Faculty Determined Sanction 12 9 Hearing Panel Determined Sanction Case Dropped 123 AV Found Not Responsible Figure 2. Number of violations that faculty determined sanctions (Option 1), and the number of violations that the Honor & Integrity System determined if Honor Code was violated and appropriate sanctions (Option 2). Alleged Violator Demographics Of the 175 students reported in 2011-­‐2012, 118 students were male and 52 were female (5 did not report). Alleged violators were fairly evenly distributed between undergraduate classes (Fig. 3). There were 11 cases that involved graduate students (on-­‐campus and distance students). Graduate 8% 7% 23% 23% Senior Junior 18% 20% Sophomore Freshman Non-­‐Degree Figure 3. Breakdown of alleged violator’s class. Faculty Demographics Reports were received from all levels of teaching personnel (Fig. 4). Tenure track faculty constituted 55% of the violation reports received while instructors accounted for 22%. Graduate Teaching Assistants filed 19% of the reports and 11% of the reports were filed by administrative personnel which includes Deans, Department Heads, and Program Coordinators. 5
11% Professor 21% Assoc, Professor 12% Assistant Professor 15% Instructors GTAs 22% Other 19% Figure 4: Breakdown of reporter’s position at Kansas State University. Details about Violations Most violations were students giving or receiving answers from others (Fig. 5). Classic plagiarism was another common violation. 2% 12% 7% 38% Plagiarism Unauthor. Coll. Unauthor. Aid 40% Falsigication other Figure 5. Breakdown on alleged violations. Plagiarism: Copying other resources. Unauthorized collaboration: Giving or receiving answers. Unauthorized Aid: Consulting unapproved resources. Falsification: Submitting work under false pretenses. Details about Sanctions Sanctions ranged from permanent XF grades to a verbal warning (Fig. 4). A total of 13 alleged violators were determined to not be responsible for violating the Honor Code. Twelve students contested the alleged violation and 15 hearings were conducted. Eight of the 12 contesting students were found to be not responsible. This shows the due process for alleged violators is working well and is a valuable aspect to the Honor & Integrity System. In a more unusual situation, five students received permanent XF grades for participating in a semester long unauthorized aid scheme. The situation involved a student sitting for exam, removing exam from testing room, sharing exam with other students, solving exam outside of the testing environment, and then sitting 6
for exam at a later time and submitting the completed exam. This conduct was repeated several times throughout the semester. XF 5% 2% 1% 8% F 1% 3% DI Course 20% 1% Zero on Assign. Zero on Exam 26% 32% Cap on Course Redo Assign. Reduced Grade Reduced Assign. Grade Reduced Course Grade Warning Only Figure 6. Breakdown of sanctions. An alleged violator may receive more than one sanction. For example, requiring the Development and Integrity Course and issuing an XF are commonly given together. Second Violations There were eight students that had previously been reported to the Honor & Integrity System. These students were required to appear before a hearing panel to determine if further sanctions were needed. Three of these students received additional sanctions because of having violated the Honor Code multiple times. Educational Presentations From August, 2011 through July, 2012, Dr. Roberts presented 48 presentations related to academic integrity and honesty. Through these 48 presentations, 2,615 students and 145 faculty/staff were informed of the Honor & Integrity System. These presentations ranged from 10-­‐15 minutes to multiple hour workshops. Several workshops were of particular interest as Dr. Roberts presented at Manhattan High School (MHS) to 10 freshmen English classes, Flint Hills Christian School, and Junction City High School English classes about plagiarism and the need to learn how to appropriately cite material in their research projects. Dr. Roberts also continued to work with the English Language Program (ELP) to present to a variety of their classes. It was very difficult to get Honor & Integrity Peer Educators (HIPE) group involved in activities this year. They met several times during the fall semester and even designed a new board to use for recruitment and for informational tables, however, nothing happened after making the board. They found it very difficult to come up with a good time to meet so that all members could be there. Another challenge was that alleged violators did not request help from HIPE, which is one of HIPE’s main purposes. 7
Development and Integrity Course The summer session 2011 of the Development and Integrity class was delivered in an online format, meeting for 3 weeks. Fifteen students enrolled in this course and fourteen successfully completed the course during the summer session. Many of the students appreciated being able to fulfill their requirement during the summer while not in Manhattan. Due to time of transition, Dawn Lesperance, a Ph.D. student, taught the fall 2011 and spring 2012 Development and Integrity Course offerings. Dawn had previously taught this course while a practicum student working on her master’s degree in Higher Education Administration. Dawn was also an active member of the Honor Council and Honor and Integrity Peer Educators. During the fall 2011 semester, the Development and Integrity Course continued as an 8 week (meeting twice a week) course. During the first 8-­‐week course, 12 students were enrolled in the face-­‐to-­‐face course offering. All students successfully completed the course. Twenty additional students enrolled in and 19 successfully completed the class during the second eight-­‐weeks of the fall semester. During the second eight weeks, an online component with 3 students (2 completing) enrolled. During the spring 2012 semester, 21 students enrolled during the first eight weeks (with all successfully completing) and 18 students were enrolled during the second eight weeks face-­‐to-­‐
face courses. An additional 9 students enrolled (8 completing) in the online component during the second eight weeks of the semester. The summer session of the Development and Integrity class was delivered in an online format, meeting every day online from May 14-­‐June 1, 2012. Thirteen students were enrolled in the class, with all completing it. In summary, during the 2011-­‐2012 academic year 35 students enrolled and successfully completed the online component, and 70 completed the face-­‐to-­‐face course. Compared to the previous year, 46 students completed the face-­‐to-­‐face offerings and 37 completed the online component in 2010-­‐
2011. Administrative No changes were made to procedure documents or the constitution during the past academic year. Dr. Camilla Roberts served as the Interim Director, as well as completed her Associate Director duties, during the Spring, 2012 semester. Dr. David Allen completed six successful and productive years as the Director. He has become the Director of Field Experience for the College of Education. An internal search was completed and Dr. Starrett, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, was selected to become the Director on June 14th, 2012. The position is a 5 tenths appointment for a renewable 3-­‐yr period. Dr. Starrett remains 5 tenths in the Civil Engineering Department. Future Activities Drs. Starrett and Roberts plan to continue usual activities: work with faculty and students on alleged violations, teach the Development and Integrity course, conduct hearings, and work with the Honor Council in reviewing operating guidelines. We also plan to visit all departments at both K-­‐State campuses to have a brief update and refresher conversation about the Honor & Integrity System. We plan to update our website and to develop a communication plan during the 2012/2013 academic year. 8